It wasn't surprising when Democratic state Rep. Scott Drury of Highwood issued a blistering news release Monday attacking veteran Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan, calling him out for "failed policies and leadership" and dubbing him "Illinois' own Dr. Frankenstein."

Drury's on the outs with Madigan, having crossed him on some key votes. And what slim hope Drury has of prevailing in the crowded Democratic primary for governor next year relies on his ability to set himself apart from his rivals as the one with the most distance from the unpopular but powerful speaker.

"When Democrats had total control of Illinois, instead of promoting progressive ideas that helped the working class, Madigan promoted structural deficits, unfunded pension liabilities and education inequity," said Drury's release, in part. "Against this backdrop, Democrats lost the 2014 gubernatorial election, as voters searched for anything but more of the same. Madigan is Illinois' own Dr. Frankenstein — the man responsible for creating a monster he cannot control."

Again, not surprising. But illustrative. In his rant, Drury crisply outlined the challenge that will confront whichever Democrat ultimately faces incumbent Republican Bruce Rauner in 15 months: How much, if at all, do you defend the legacy of Mike Madigan?

Madigan himself is unlikely to be of help. He's a steely technocrat with a charisma deficit who seldom gives interviews and declines to engage the charge that, as House speaker for all but two of the last 34 years, he bears major responsibility for Illinois' worst-in-the-nation pension debt, its lagging business climate and crushing accumulation of bills.

"Madigan has commented on the longevity question," his spokesman, Steve Brown, wrote when I sent him Drury's statement and asked for a considered response. After I reminded him that it wasn't longevity that I was interested in but culpability, his clipped answer was "not sure time to dig around."

I asked the leading contenders in the Democratic gubernatorial primary about the potential of Madigan to be the albatross around their necks and how they'd respond to Drury's broadside.

State Sen. Daniel Biss of Evanston: "Mike Madigan is part of the problem," he said in a phone interview. "But calling people names is a waste of time and counterproductive. We have a system that doesn't work and is keeping a lot of people locked out, and making this campaign about replacing one person and not replacing the system is a recipe for failure."

Chicago Ald. Ameya Pawar, 47th: "The idea that one person is responsible for the state's problems ignores how both sides have contributed to them, and it does Bruce Rauner a great favor," he said in a phone interview. "Leaders of both parties haven't been willing to raise the money to pay for the services people say they want. They haven't been willing to tell voters that we live in a very wealthy state with a very regressive tax system."

Businessman Chris Kennedy: "It's not my job to defend Mike Madigan," he said, also in a phone interview. "There's plenty of blame to go around. Rauner has fabricated the fiction that if it weren't for Madigan, we'd have a balanced budget, our credit rating would improve and all our problems would be solved. But speakers don't lead states, governors do. And ours has lacked strong governors with a strong vision."

Kennedy renewed his charge that Madigan's role as a prominent property tax appeals lawyer is in conflict with his role as speaker, and he said he expects to be "oppositional" with Madigan during the primary season.

(Update: Pritzker campaign spokeswoman Galia Slayen sent this quote Friday morning: “J.B. is focused on holding Bruce Rauner accountable for the damage he has done across this state and for his failed leadership. As noted yesterday, J.B. believes the Illinois Democratic Party has improvements to make – and he will lead those efforts as governor.”)

I certainly understand the political impulse to dance around or avoid altogether a confrontation with the legacy of the most powerful official in the General Assembly and the chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party.

One person who embraced the challenge was House Deputy Majority Leader Lou Lang, who is not running for governor but provided a strong defense of Madigan's legacy. He argued that Madigan has "advanced investments that have directly benefited working families, reformed Illinois ethics and campaign finance laws and approved far-reaching social changes."

The challenge to the candidates won't go away. Rauner hasn't accomplished much in office, but he has succeeded in turning Madigan's name to mud with a virtually nonstop campaign of invective to which Madigan has barely responded. It's pretty clear that Rauner's re-election strategy will be trying to persuade voters that, feckless as he may be, at least he's a better choice than the guy from the party of Madigan.

Drury has done the field a favor. With colorful spleen he's provided an early reminder that Illinois Democrats must look back with clear eyes before they can plausibly look ahead.

They have to show an understanding of what's gone wrong over the decades, not just the last several years, and also explain how they plan to work with the dreaded speaker to set them right.